Putting the role of the elected members of the London Assembly in context: They have failed London people on holding 'the mayor' to account!

You [Dave Hill, 'Guardian London Blog' Monday 15 November 2010] say:

“We've had the "good news" announcements about funding for Crossrail and the Tube upgrades being secured, but what about lesser and more localised transport projects and what about housing and policing?”

Are you expecting the London Assembly to even seek answers to all the key components of your question let alone be less than satisfied with whatever Boris Johnson will deign to utter with reference to the specific presentations of the supposed questions [assuming that the current London Assembly does have a member possessing the requisite democratic, ethical, constitutional ability and willingness to pursue the truth]?

In the almost 10 years of recorded contents of the so-called Mayor’s Question Time, there has been only one instance when the London Assembly did appear almost like a democratic forum intent on establishing the truth. That was when Ken Livingstone was seen to be repeatedly insulting the ‘lot of you’ as he called the questioners, as chaired by Sally Hamway [as she was still called] who was forced to suspend the session as Livingstone would not allow an objectively orderly progress on the matter under question. That matter of course was Livingstone's then widely publicised role in relation to a host of funding under the aegis of the LDA. If that incident is taken as a guide then your question will remain academic. You can find successive holders of the post of Opposition leader on the GLA/London Assembly over the past 10 years performing at well below the NECESSARY standard and quality. NECESSARY by the enormity of unaddressed issues that affect so many lives of so many people in London. In the breath of knowledge about London and more importantly in the actual auditing of the role of the holder of the post of mayor in the name of the people of London, the GLA/London Assembly has been a failure. The proof of course is still in the fact that no matter how uncomfortable Livingstone feels whenever the names are mentioned, Martin Bright and Andrew Gilligan did contribute some urgent questions that the GLA/London Assembly members and the Guardian ought to have led with but failed to even acknowledge at the time ON THE RECORD. Will the Guardian now make up fort that and start investigating the mayor as he actually does his career rather than promote the entirely designed and planned hype and PR event called the Mayor’s Question Time? Isn’t it totally predictable of Boris Johnson to make utterances that would undermine his main known rival, Ken Livingstone, such as that inconsistent hype about Kosovo-type cleansing when Boris KNEW – and still does know – that any such gesture can only undermine Ken Livingstone’s ‘established profile and cv’ on such issues as ‘faith groups’ and ‘ethnic electors’. This strategy [and the detailed tactics that follow from it] will continue to be played by the Tories. And in their position the same would apply to the Blaired Party members. So where does that take us on getting the truth out of the mayor? By all of us in London NOT waiting for the truth to be volunteered by Boris in post or by any of his overpaid and over-hyped sidekicks or hangers on at the expense of the public. We the public have to look for the evidence and confront the holders of the posts with that evidence.

Citing the online video showing Ken Livingstone berating the London Assembly, still accessible at 1100 Hrs GMT Monday 15 November 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kMuHlt5IIs

1105 Hrs

Monday

15 November 2010

BHANGEELAAR! THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST AN ELECTED MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS